Could I bother you guys to take a look at this comparison: http://www.alunfoto.no/temp/flashAnomaly/flashtest.html
All shots obtained at a working distance of 2 meters, and with constant ambient light. The 48mm series stands quite distinctly apart. Graydon and John (or others), if you still think this is rationally explainable by other factors than a faulty flash, please let me know. Jostein 2009/7/11 Graydon <[email protected]>: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:10:23PM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit: >> You describe how I would expect the flash to function. My observation >> was that at _one_ particular zoom setting, 48mm, the output is two >> stops brighter than any other zoom setting. This also includes 58mm >> which, as you say, should produce a more concentrated beam. If there >> was any logic to this the 58mm zoom setting should have been even >> worse than 48mm, but the histogram at 58mm is perfect... :-( > > If there's a step function in the output of the flash, though, and "over > 48" gets stepped down and _up to_ 48 does not get stepped down, it's > quite possible that 48 would result in blown highlights while 58 > wouldn't. > > Why this is happening goes back to the usual "evil algorithm vs hardware > fault" question. > > -- Graydon > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
